Ridiculous rule.

[Mint]

"Accusing anyone of scamming"

I have had countless infractions for accusing a particular person in the runescape section of scamming, yet all I am doing is trying to warn people about him. He has recently made a few safe trades but that doesn't mean that I should forget about what he did and not tell people to take extra care while trading with him. Anyway this is more about the rule than what has happened to me. This is a teens forum which revolves around quite a few online games, items can be traded for money or items on another game (e.g runescape and habbo). One problem with these sorts of trades is that it isn't always safe, it's not like trading on habbo where you are guaranteed to get what you are trading for. An issue that pops up a lot when trading between games is scammers, there's loads of them. Habbox however don't exactly help matters, they won't allow us to name the scammers so other people don't get scammed. They simply remove the post and punish the poster. And you say Mod's are here to help? I've since found 2 people that have been scammed by the person that scammed me, I'm sure that they would of warned everyone about him if they could. But no no no, they have to sit tight and allow other people to get scammed by him. I know the downsides of allowing people to name scammers, false accusing is probably the main reason. A way around this would be that you have to pm the evidence to a Mod, let them check it out and make sure it isn't fake, and if it is a genuine scam then the scammer should be named.

I'm not slating Habbox in any way, just slating this rule. :)

[Chaos]

There used to be a rule [Idk if its still about] But people who were unsafe. IF you have proof eg. Screenie / Video. They would monitor it and ban user if neccasery.

There also used to be a trusted list.
But i think that list should not happen again as as you said some people do low safe trades then scam on high trades.

[GoldenMerc]

There used to be a rule [Idk if its still about] But people who were unsafe. IF you have proof eg. Screenie / Video. They would monitor it and ban user if neccasery.
Thats a fairly good idea although not any more as screenies and video's can be easily edited.

[Chaos]

Thats a fairly good idea although not any more as screenies and video's can be easily edited.


It was like a hypercam video. But hypercam cant easily be edited, Screenies can.

[GoldenMerc]

hypercam can be edited easy :P

[Chaos]

Really? I thought you couldnt editit after you recorded.

[Immenseman]

I think it's a good rule. I could easily make a thread saying "Mint scams" and I guess people would believe me and people would believe you when you said you were innocent. That's the big trouble here; any member can easily call another scammer although they're lying and that person would lose all their "reputation" and could hamper their runsescape to habbo trades for example, ruining their forum experience.

I don't think the rule should be changed at all. Sure, screenies and videos could be taken into account but it doesn't take a genius to fake/edit such methods. It's way too inconclusive and people would happily go to such extreme lengths to annoy others thus not making it reliable.

Of course it's annoying when you get scammed. You just want to tell other people about your misfortune to ensure they don't fall victim by the same person. You can still do this just not via the forum. I can see where you're coming from but you have to understand where management are coming from also and their case it a lot more solid than yours.

[Inseriousity.]

I think it's a good rule. I could easily make a thread saying "Mint scams" and I guess people would believe me and people would believe you when you said you were innocent. That's the big trouble here; any member can easily call another scammer although they're lying and that person would lose all their "reputation" and could hamper their runsescape to habbo trades for example, ruining their forum experience.

I don't think the rule should be changed at all. Sure, screenies and videos could be taken into account but it doesn't take a genius to fake/edit such methods. It's way too inconclusive and people would happily go to such extreme lengths to annoy others thus not making it reliable.

Of course it's annoying when you get scammed. You just want to tell other people about your misfortune to ensure they don't fall victim by the same person. You can still do this just not via the forum. I can see where you're coming from but you have to understand where management are coming from also and their case it a lot more solid than yours.

I agree with everything here! It's a good rule as even though 'reputation' is only for an online game it doesn't matter that much. I think it's more the angry feeling I'd get of someone accusing you of scamming rather than the topic. Those 'SCAMMER' rooms on Habbo that people make annoy you because of the lies rather than the room itself.

As for the bold bit, I think people would be more likely to believe an ex-AGM as it normally comes down to 'reputation' so yeah, I'd rather this rule stayed for those with less of a reputation.

[nvrspk4]

The number of people who have been falsely accused even with the rule are enough for us to justify the existence of the rule. We would rather protect innocent people from being bullied as scammers. Especially because you do trade at your own risk and realistically we know that the more trusted members of the forum when they get scammed will tell their friends and word will spread. You can look up trades that user has done in the past and ask for vouches. Its not a perfect system but honestly its about as good as its going to get.

Jin did a nice long post explaining the rule a while ago, he even edited some screenshots and maybe a video (not sure about that one) in about two minutes just to show how easy it was to fake proof. I'll see if I can find it.

[Mint]

Yeh I agree with you Jake, but if it was all done through a Mod and the Mod posted it without naming the person that got scammed, reputation would not come into it. But even then we have the fake evidence situation, surely we can find a way around that?

[nvrspk4]

Yeh I agree with you Jake, but if it was all done through a Mod and the Mod posted it without naming the person that got scammed, reputation would not come into it. But even then we have the fake evidence situation, surely we can find a way around that?

Can we? :P If you have a solution this is certainly the forum to post it, if you do come up with a good solution we'd definitely take a hard look at it.

[Kieeran]

I agree with everything here! It's a good rule as even though 'reputation' is only for an online game it doesn't matter that much. I think it's more the angry feeling I'd get of someone accusing you of scamming rather than the topic. Those 'SCAMMER' rooms on Habbo that people make annoy you because of the lies rather than the room itself.

As for the bold bit, I think people would be more likely to believe an ex-AGM as it normally comes down to 'reputation' so yeah, I'd rather this rule stayed for those with less of a reputation.

why dont habbox suggest certain 'middlemen' who would be known to be trusted and as a 'payment' they get habbox donator. this way when a trades taking place, the tradees summon a middleman then go from there

[nvrspk4]

why dont habbox suggest certain 'middlemen' who would be known to be trusted and as a 'payment' they get habbox donator. this way when a trades taking place, the tradees summon a middleman then go from there

I *believe* there is a safe traders list, so if they weren't on there you could ask a safe trader to be the middleman.

[Nixt]

I established a safe traders list for the Habbo Trading Forum when I first became a Mod. That was over a year ago now and I think it got unstuck because with the Habbo exchange and new trading rules on Habbo it became obsolete. Perhaps another could be established and well maintained in the runescape forum?

Jin's post nvr referred to...

http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=2484880&postcount=4

[champions]

this forum is so stupid. the rule is ridiculous imo.. look at other forums they dont have this stupid rule and there is no threads accusing people of scamming. even if there was a thread accusing somebody of scamming - who cares? this isnt a forum where you trade money for items e.t.c and if somebody says it will ruin their reputation - lool a reputation on habbo... omg sad

[Chaos]

I established a safe traders list for the Habbo Trading Forum when I first became a Mod. That was over a year ago now and I think it got unstuck because with the Habbo exchange and new trading rules on Habbo it became obsolete. Perhaps another could be established and well maintained in the runescape forum?

Jin's post nvr referred to...

http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=2484880&postcount=4


I know im no relevence to this thread but its not only runescape which needs middlemen and a safe traders list.

Things like Trading inbetween different hotels and maybe even simple things like trading that super rare habbo tower trophy "Blank" could do with safe traders list.

But imo a middlemen list would be SO much better. Wouldnt have to worry about people scamming ect. Even if it started out as forum admin or mods doing safe trading.


Also the forums about other online games for habbo ect.

[Immenseman]

this forum is so stupid. the rule is ridiculous imo.. look at other forums they dont have this stupid rule and there is no threads accusing people of scamming. even if there was a thread accusing somebody of scamming - who cares? this isnt a forum where you trade money for items e.t.c and if somebody says it will ruin their reputation - lool a reputation on habbo... omg sad
This is a forum related to Habbo. People enjoy playing the game and wouldn't appreciate their reputation being ruined for something they actively play every day. Just because YOU don't play it I know when you played it daily yourself so that's a bit hypocritical.

[FlyingJesus]

*Removed*


Edited by ,Jess, (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not accuse others of scamming.

[e5]

It's not nice to name and shame people. They do change, and you wouldn't like being singled out for something negative. It's classed as bullying too, really.

Maybe the rule should be changed to "continously accusing someone of scamming". Can be easily done with usernotes.

[Mint]

It's not nice to name and shame people. They do change, and you wouldn't like being singled out for something negative. It's classed as bullying too, really.

Maybe the rule should be changed to "continously accusing someone of scamming". Can be easily done with usernotes.

No thanks because I would of had like 10 of them if that rule existed. :D

Ok it's harder than I thought it would be to find a way of giving evidence that has not been tampered with. Someone mentioned having middle men, I think that would be a fantastic way of stopping scammers. But who could be the middle man? And if it was someone like nvr and he ran of with the items he could easily get away with it because who would everyone believe? Obviously nvr wouldn't do such thing but someone else might, no matter how trusted they are around here.

[Chaos]

No thanks because I would of had like 10 of them if that rule existed. :D

Ok it's harder than I thought it would be to find a way of giving evidence that has not been tampered with. Someone mentioned having middle men, I think that would be a fantastic way of stopping scammers. But who could be the middle man? And if it was someone like nvr and he ran of with the items he could easily get away with it because who would everyone believe? Obviously nvr wouldn't do such thing but someone else might, no matter how trusted they are around here.


Imo it should start off as admin & possibly forum mods not individual section mods. People like Catzsy if they are willing to do it. And then from their experiences or who they trust have it ADMIN choose who gets onto the trusted list. Even if its like 10 members on it max. At least the admin trust them meaning there is less chance of scams. And i doubt people who are like nvr would run anyway. There are other forums with successful MM who deal with like 500£ at a time and none of them run. Its just a matter of finding people who you can trust. [Not because they are rich] But like admin and staff.

[FlyingJesus]

No thanks because I would of had like 10 of them if that rule existed. :D

I know something I should have 10 of...

[nvrspk4]

I know something I should have 10 of...

Hairs on your body? Dw that comes with puberty.



As far as middlemen, we could look into instituting a system but if Habbox endorsed it it would be problematic if middlemen ever "went sour" so to speak. I do know of extremely trusted members of staff who went rogue, one of the most prominent examples being >Max< from loong ago. Though this doesn't happen often, if it does it could be problematic.

[The Professor]

Its too difficult to ascertain who's telling the truth to allow people to accuse each other of scamming imo.

If habbox had middlemen wouldn't that mean habbox would be taking responsibility for trades which were previously "at your own risk"? That seems a bit risky because it could give habbox a reputation as scammers should things to wrong.

[AgnesIO]

I got a PM for saying that a user that used to be called rbbs scammed luke.

Then when i said if I did that and io was staff I would be fired - strange I have not got an answer to that :rolleyes:

[Mint]

Its too difficult to ascertain who's telling the truth to allow people to accuse each other of scamming imo.

If habbox had middlemen wouldn't that mean habbox would be taking responsibility for trades which were previously "at your own risk"? That seems a bit risky because it could give habbox a reputation as scammers should things to wrong.
Habbox could say that they will not take responsibility for any scamming middle men, but even then if a MM scammed it would still give habbox a reputation as scammers.

[nvrspk4]

I got a PM for saying that a user that used to be called rbbs scammed luke.

Then when i said if I did that and io was staff I would be fired - strange I have not got an answer to that :rolleyes:

What are you talking about?


Its too difficult to ascertain who's telling the truth to allow people to accuse each other of scamming imo.

If habbox had middlemen wouldn't that mean habbox would be taking responsibility for trades which were previously "at your own risk"? That seems a bit risky because it could give habbox a reputation as scammers should things to wrong.

Yes :P

[AgnesIO]

What are you talking about?



Yes :P

I was PM'd for accusing a member of scamming. The user that DID scam, No I am not accusing I am TELLING is habbox staff. And I was pointing out if I was the one that scammed, and I was staff I am sure the certain management member that I know you do not like either, would have fired me.

[Arch]

There will always be scammers, and really everyone is a scammer, it just depends on how much it is. Some may scam 1HC but if you were to MM a trade for 5000$ im sure most would take it. If you'd like to warn other forum members simply PM them, and don't write it on there threads, easy as that.